arxiv: v2 [astro-ph.he] 30 Jan 2013

Transcription

1 ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 16, 12 Preprint typeset using LATEX style emulateapj v. 5/2/11 THE PROGENITOR DEPENDENCE OF THE PREEXPLOSION NEUTRINO EMISSION IN CORE-COLLAPSE SUPERNOVAE EVAN O CONNOR 1 AND CHRISTIAN D. OTT 1,2 Accepted for Publication in The Astrophysical Journal, November 16, 12 arxiv:17.11v2 [astro-ph.he] 3 Jan 13 ABSTRACT We perform spherically-symmetric general-relativistic simulations of core collapse and the postbounce preexplosion phase in 32 presupernova stellar models of solar metallicity with zero-age-main-sequence masses of 12M to 1M. Using energy-dependent three-species neutrino transport in the two-moment approximation with an analytic closure, we show that the emitted neutrino luminosities and spectra follow very systematic trends that are correlated with the compactness ( M/R) of the progenitor star s inner regions via the accretion rate in the preexplosion phase. We find that these qualitative trends depend only weakly on the nuclear equation of state, but quantitative observational statements will require independent constraints on the equation of state and the rotation rate of the core as well as a more complete understanding of neutrino oscillations. We investigate the simulated response of water Cherenkov detectors to the electron antineutrino fluxes from our models and find that the large statistics of a galactic core collapse event may allow robust conclusions on the inner structure of the progenitor star. Subject headings: equation of state - hydrodynamics - neutrinos - stars: evolution - stars: neutron - stars: supernovae: general 1. INTRODUCTION The radial instability of the electron-degenerate, Chandrasekhar-mass core marks the beginning of the final episode in the life of a massive star with zero-age main-sequence (ZAMS) mass in the range 8M 13M. Collapse ensues and, once fully dynamical, separates the core into a subsonically homologously contracting inner core and a supersonically collapsing outer core. At nuclear density, the repulsive component of the nuclear force leads to a stiffening of the equation of state (EOS). This stabilizes the inner core, which overshoots its new equilibrium, then rebounds into the outer core, launching a strong hydrodynamic shock wave from its edge. This instant in time is referred to as core bounce. The inner core has a mass of.5m at bounce and this material becomes the unshocked core of the protoneutron star. The shock formed at core bounce propagates into the outer core, but the dissociation of nuclei in the accreted material into neutrons and protons and the electron capture on free protons in the region behind the shock (the postshock region) soon sap its might, driving it into submission to the ram pressure of accretion. The shock stalls and turns into a standing accretion shock that must be revived to unbind the stellar envelope and drive a core-collapse supernova explosion. Neutrinos play a pivotal and dominant role in stellar collapse and core-collapse supernovae. Neutrinos and antineutrinos of all flavors carry away the 3B (= ergs) of gravitational binding energy of the remnant neutron star over tens of seconds after core bounce. Aided by multidimensional fluid instabilities, they probably deposit, within 1 TAPIR, Mailcode 35-17, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, evanoc@tapir.caltech.edu, cott@tapir.caltech.edu 2 Kavli IPMU, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellow a few hundred milliseconds after bounce, sufficient energy in the region behind the stalled shock to revive the shock and make typical 1 B core-collapse supernova explosion (Janka et al. 7; Müller et al. 12b and references therein). Only hyper-energetic (i.e., O(1) B) explosions may require a different mechanism (Ugliano et al. 12), e.g., rapid rotation combined with strong magnetic fields, which may lead to energetic jet-driven explosions (e.g., Burrows et al. 7). For a galactic or near-extragalactic core-collapse supernova, neutrinos offer the unique possibility of directly observing the dynamics and thermodynamic conditions prevalent in the supernova core. Together with gravitational waves (see, e.g., Ott 9; Kotake 11) they will herald the next nearby supernova possibly hours before any telescope sensitive to electromagnetic waves will notice the event. In the probable case that the next galactic supernova occurs in a dust-enshrouded region and/or close or behind the galactic center, the supernova may be impossible to observe in broad bands of the electromagnetic spectrum, making neutrino and gravitational-wave observations even more important. The observation of neutrinos from SN 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud (Hirata et al. 1987; Bionta et al. 1987; Alekseev et al. 1987) confirmed the basic picture of core collapse and early protoneutron star evolution (e.g., Sato & Suzuki 1987; Bruenn 1987; Burrows & Lattimer 1986; Burrows 1987, 1988; Arnett et al. 1989; Jegerlehner et al. 1996; Loredo & Lamb 2; Yüksel & Beacom 7; Pagliaroli et al. 9b and references therein), but the small number and poor timing of the observed interactions did not allow farreaching and robust conclusions on core-collapse supernova dynamics and the involved neutrino physics, nuclear physics and astrophysics. The situation will be completely different when the neutrino burst from a galactic core-collapse supernova reaches current and near-future neutrino detectors on Earth.

2 2 Super-Kamiokande (Fukuda et al. 3; Ikeda et al. [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration] 7), IceCube (Abbasi et al. [IceCube Collaboration] 11), LVD (Aglietta et al. 1992; Vigorito [LVD Collaboration] 11), Borexino (Alimonti et al. [BOREXINO Collaboration] 9; Cadonati et al. 2), KamLAND (Piepke 1), SNO+ (Kraus & Peeters 1), Noνa (Davies, [for the NOνA Collaboration] 11) and others will together see many thousands of neutrinos from a core collapse event at 1kpc (Scholberg 12). Distance estimates based on the observed neutrino flux (Kachelrieß et al. 5), sky localization (Beacom & Vogel 1999; Tomas et al. 3), and triggering of gravitational-wave searches by the reconstruction of the time of core bounce (Pagliaroli et al. 9a; Halzen & Raffelt 9) will likely all be possible. Well-timed high-statistics coincident neutrino observations will allow to probe in detail a broad range of supernova astrophysics, nuclear physics, and neutrino physics (see Burrows et al. 1992; Wurm et al. 12; Raffelt 1 for overviews). Fast characteristic temporal variations in the preexplosion neutrino fluxes would be tell-tale signs of multi-dimensional fluid instabilities in the postshock region (Ott et al. 8; Marek et al. 9; Lund et al. 1; Brandt et al. 11) and/or early postbounce ring-down oscillations of a rapidly spinning protoneutron star (Ott et al. 12). While artificially-driven, spherically-symmetric core collapse simulations suggest that a sudden deep drop of the accretion-driven component of the neutrino luminosity (primarily in and ) within a few hundred milliseconds would indicate the onset of explosion (e.g., Burrows et al. 1992; Fischer et al. 12, 1), the situation is likely different in nature as multidimensional simulations show a much shallower drop due to simultaneous accretion and explosion of material. This leads to a persistent accretion luminosity even after the explosion has begun (Müller et al. 12b,a). The spectral characteristics and long-term spectral evolution of the neutrino flux could provide important constraints on the nuclear EOS (Roberts et al. 12; Marek et al. 9) and/or the spin of the progenitor core (Ott et al. 8; Marek & Janka 9). The ability of some detectors to distinguish interactions of different neutrino flavors would lead to constraints on the neutron-to-proton ratio in the neutrinodriven wind phase, allowing an observational test of corecollapse supernovae as potential sites for r-process nucleosynthesis (Hüdepohl et al. 1; Fischer et al. 1; Wurm et al. 12). The neutrino signature of core collapse, of the subsequent core-collapse supernova evolution and of the protoneutron star cooling phase, is invariably intertwined with neutrino oscillation physics. The robustness of all of the above mentioned observational conclusions will depend on our understanding of the impact of neutrino flavor oscillations. Neutrinos propagating from their emission site to detectors on Earth may experience (i) so-called vacuum oscillations driven by neutrino mass differences (Pontecorvo 1968), (ii) oscillations mediated by a resonance in ν e scattering (the Mikheyev- Smirnov-Wolfenstein [MSW] effect; Mikheev & Smirnov 1986; Wolfenstein 1978), and (iii) oscillations due to ν ν scattering (Pantaleone 1992; see Duan et al. 1 for a review). Vacuum and MSW oscillations are well understood and their outcomes depend essentially only on neutrino mixing parameters, in particular the neutrino mass hierarchy and the mixing angles. The ν ν-scattering driven oscillations, on the other hand, have a non-linear Hamiltonian that may lead to so-called collective oscillations with very complex spatial and temporal outcome that remains to be fully understood (see, e.g., Hannestad et al. 6; Duan et al. 7; Fogli et al. 9; Dasgupta & Dighe 8; Duan et al. 1 and references therein). However, a number of recent studies suggest that collective oscillations may be completely or at least partially suppressed in the preexplosion accretion phase of ordinary core-collapse supernovae (Chakraborty et al. 11b,a; Sarikas et al. 12), but see Cherry et al. (12) and Dasgupta et al. (12) for discrepant results. Provided that collective oscillations can be ignored in the preexplosion phase and that the θ 13 mixing angle indeed has the large value suggested by recent measurements (An et al. 12), the neutrino mass hierarchy may be inferred from the qualitative shape of the early postbounce neutrino signal (Kachelrieß et al. 5; Serpico et al. 12). A preexplosion accretion phase with suppressed collective oscillations would also offer the opportunity to probe the structure of the progenitor star on the basis of the observed neutrino signal. The details of the preexplosion neutrino emission have been discussed carefully, e.g., by Thompson et al. (3) and Liebendörfer et al. (4) and we shall not repeat them here. It is, however, necessary to outline its most salient features. For simplicity, we neglect neutrino oscillations in the following. In core collapse and in the subsequent postbounce evolution, emission of and occurs via charged and neutral currents, while heavy-lepton neutrinos ν x = {ν µ, ν µ,ν τ, ν τ } are created exclusively via thermal neutral-current pair processes. Before core bounce, only are emitted from electron capture in the collapsing core. Milliseconds after core bounce, the shock breaks out of the neutrinosphere (where the optical depth is τ νe 2/3) and a strong burst of is emitted for ms from rapid electron capture on the freshly abundant free protons behind the shock. ν x are copiously created in the hot interior of the protoneutron star after bounce and begin to diffuse out, leading to a steep rise, quick leveling and subsequent slow decay of the ν x luminosity (L νx ). production via charged-current positron capture is initially suppressed due to the high degeneracy of the electrons. The latter is partially lifted after bounce at the moderate-density, hot edge of the protoneutron star and L νe rises, reaching or surpassing the value at which L νe levels off after the neutronization burst decays. The subsequent preexplosion luminosity can roughly be split into a diffusive component from the core and accretion luminosity ( GM[R ν ]Ṁ/R ν, where R ν is an approximate neutrinosphere radius) from or from above the neutrinosphere (Burrows 1988). L νx is primarily diffusive, while L νe and L νe are dominated by accretion. In general, L νe L νe > L νx, but 4L νx = L νµ + L νµ + L ντ + L ντ > L νe + L νe. ν x have the lowest opacity, since they interact only via neutral currents. They decouple from matter at the smallest radii and highest temperatures and thus have the highest average energies ɛ ν. have a slightly lower opacity than, leading to the well established neutrino energy hierarchy in the preexplosion phase ɛ νx > ɛ νe > ɛ νe. The mean energy of all species grows with increasing postbounce time, reflecting the recession of the neutrinospheres due to the contraction of the protoneutron star. Considering that the accretion luminosity will scale with the postbounce accretion rate Ṁ, one would naturally expect an increase of the detected neutrino interactions with increas-

3 3 ing mass of the stellar core. Since higher accretion rates correspond to more material compressing and settling more rapidly on the protoneutron star, the latter s outer regions will be hotter. Thus the thermal neutral-current emission will be enhanced, leading to higher luminosities and higher mean neutrino energies. The variation of the preexplosion neutrino signal with progenitor star ZAMS mass was first discussed by Woosley et al. (1986) based on the pioneering simulations of Wilson (1985) and Wilson et al. (1986). These authors provided total emission characteristics and spectra that show a systematic increase of total energy emitted in neutrinos and mean energy with ZAMS mass in the range from 1 25M. Mayle et al. (1987), before SN 1987A, carried out simulations of a range of progenitor stars with ZAMS mass in the range 12 1M. They found that the neutronization burst shows little dependence on the progenitor, due to the rather universal homologous collapse and bounce dynamics. Furthermore, they mentioned, though did not discuss in detail, that the luminosities and mean neutrino energies increase as a function of iron core mass (and not ZAMS mass). A more detailed and clear physical discussion was provided by Bruenn (1987), who contrasted the predicted neutrino signal from the early postbounce phase in two different progenitor core models with neutrino observations of SN 1987A. He noted that there are significant uncertainties in connecting a given ZAMS mass to precollapse structure. Instead of a progenitor with an associated ZAMS mass, he considered a massive (and high-entropy) 2.5-M iron core model and a lowermass (and lower-entropy) 1.35-M iron core model in his spherically-symmetric (1D) neutrino radiation-hydrodynamic simulations. He showed that the more massive core leads to a consistently higher luminosity in both the accretion and diffusion sectors. The water Cherenkov detectors that observed neutrinos from SN 1987A are most sensitive to the inverse beta decay (IBD) reaction + p n+e +. Bruenn (1987) predicted a factor of two difference in the integrated number of early IBD interactions between the massive and the low-mass core in these detectors. He concluded that the neutrino signal observed by these detectors from SN 1987A was most consistent with the low-mass core. Burrows (1988), who carried out a parameter study of quasi-hydrostatic protoneutron star cooling, considering various initial masses, ad-hoc accretion rates, and different nuclear EOS, found a similar trend. He showed that more massive cores, higher accretion rates, and softer EOS lead to stronger, higher-energy neutrino emission. Some of his strongest emitters were cases in which eventually a black hole was formed. Liebendörfer and collaborators carried out a sequence of studies of the progenitor dependence of the neutrino signal using modern general relativistic 1D radiation-hydrodynamics simulations (Liebendörfer et al. 1, 2, 3, 4). They showed that the neutronization burst is indeed almost independent of progenitor structure (as first suggested by Mayle et al. 1987). They also qualitatively and quantitatively connected the evolution of the postbounce preexplosion luminosity to the postbounce accretion rate, but did not discuss observational implications. Their results were corroborated by similarly sophisticated subsequent studies of Kachelrieß et al. (5); Buras et al. (6); Fischer et al. (9); Sumiyoshi et al. (8); Fischer et al. (1, 12); Serpico et al. (12). Of these, Buras et al. (6) presented the most comprehensive analysis and also compared between 1D and axisymmetric (2D) results. They found that in 2D, convection in the protoneutron star alters the structure of the latter, affecting the neutrino emission starting 1 ms after bounce, but preserving the overall systematics with accretion rate. Buras et al. (6) also were the only authors to suggest that the accretion-rate dependence of luminosity and total emitted energy in the preexplosion phase could be used to infer the structure of the progenitor. The other studies, being focused on aspects such as neutrino oscillations, black hole formation, or the late-time post-explosion evolution, did not consider observational consequences. Thompson et al. (3), using a limited set of three progenitor models ({11, 15, }M at ZAMS), found similar systematics as the aforementioned studies, but also carried out an analysis of the expected signal in various neutrino detectors in the first 25ms after bounce. They computed IBD interaction rates for their -M and 11-M and found a factor of two more IBD interactions for the former, which would allow a high-confidence distinction between these progenitors for a galactic core collapse event. However, their 15-M model yielded a postbounce neutrino signal very similar to that of their 11-M model and would be indistinguishable by neutrino observations alone. This suggests that ZAMS mass is not a good parameter to describe presupernova stellar structure (cf., Bruenn 1987). In this article, we present a fresh look at the progenitor dependence of the neutrino signature in the preexplosion accretion phase of core-collapse supernovae. We perform 1D general relativistic radiation-hydrodynamics core collapse simulations of 32 progenitor models from the single-star solarmetallicity presupernova model suite of Woosley & Heger (7) and follow the postbounce preexplosion evolution for 45ms. In ZAMS mass, these models range from 12M to 1M, but guided by the previous results discussed in the above, we choose not to parameterize our simulations by ZAMS mass. Instead we employ the compactness parameter ξ M M/R(M) (for a relevant mass scale M, measured at the time of bounce). As shown in O Connor & Ott (11), and further explored in Ugliano et al. (12), ξ M is a quantitative stellar structure parameter that describes the postbounce accretion evolution to a remnant mass scale M. We demonstrate that the preexplosion neutrino emission is very well parameterized by the compactness. The preexplosion luminosities and mean energies of all neutrino species increase essentially monotonically with increasing ξ M. We compute predicted integrated IBD interactions for a galactic core-collapse supernova in the Super-Kamiokande detector and show that the clear systematics governed by ξ M carries over to observation, even when standard MSW neutrino oscillations are taken into account. Our results thus indicate that in the absence of complicated collective neutrino oscillations a high-statistics detection of neutrinos from the preexplosion phase will allow, in principle, a tight constraint of the compactness of the progenitor star s core. This, however, will require knowledge of the nuclear EOS and of the rotation rate of the collapsed core, since, as we show, both can dilute the otherwise clear compactness-dependent neutrino emission systematics. This paper is structured as follows. In 2, we discuss our general relativistic hydrodynamics code GR1D and introduce its extension to neutrino radiation-hydrodynamics in the twomoment approximation, nugr1d. The initial models and the employed EOS are discussed in 3. In 4, we present re-

4 4 sults from a benchmark collapse and postbounce simulation that allows us to compare with the previously published code comparison of Liebendörfer et al. (5) to assess nugr1d s ability to reproduce results of full Boltzmann neutrino transport. We present the results of our simulations in 5, analyze the dependence of the neutrino signal on progenitor compactness, discuss predicted IBD signals from a galactic core collapse event in the Super-Kamiokande detector, and explore potential degeneracies introduced by EOS and rotation. Finally, in 6, we critically summarize our work and conclude by contrasting our results with the early neutrino signal observed from SN 1987A. 2. METHODS We make use of the open-source 1D general relativistic hydrodynamics code GR1D (O Connor & Ott 1; available at outfitted with an energy-dependent multi-species M1 neutrino transport scheme in which the zeroth and first moments of the neutrino distribution function are evolved. We refer the reader to O Connor & Ott (1) for details on GR1D and describe in the following our current implementation of the transport scheme. For this first application, we neglect the computationally-expensive energy-coupling neutrino interactions and transport terms these terms are undoubtedly important for making highly accurate predictions of the neutrino signature (see, e.g., Lentz et al. 12a,b), but are unlikely to affect the general trends we observe. We will address them in future work, but provide a discussion on the consequences of neglecting these terms via a comparison to full Boltzmann neutrino transport simulations in 4. Our M1 scheme closely follows Shibata et al. (11), who formulate the M1 evolution equations in a closed covariant form. The scheme is simplified greatly by neglecting the energy-coupling terms. This further requires that the velocity dependent terms are also ignored. In this limit, and using the Schwarzschild-like metric and radial-polar slicing of GR1D and setting G = c = M = 1, the coordinate frame evolution equations for the neutrino energy density, E (ν), and the neutrino flux vector, F r,(ν), simplify from Equations 3.37 and 3.38 of Shibata et al. (11) to t E (ν) + 1 ( ) αr 2 r 2 r X 2 F r,(ν) = α 2 S(ν) t, (1) and t F r,(ν) + 1 r 2 r ( αr 2 X 2 P rr,(ν) ) = αx 2 S(ν) r + α E (ν)(1 p (ν) ), (2) r where S α is the neutrino interaction source term (see below), α is the lapse function and X = (1 2M(r)/r) 1/2. P rr,(ν) is the neutrino pressure tensor and is taken to be an interpolation between the two limiting cases of free streaming and diffusion. We follow Shibata et al. (11), who express P ii,(ν) as P ii,(ν) = 3p (ν) 1 P ii,(ν),thin + 3(1 p (ν)) P ii,(ν),thick, (3) 2 2 where p (ν) is the Eddington factor, taken here to be the maximum entropy closure in a closed, analytic form (Minerbo 1978; Cernohorsky & Bludman 1994), p (ν) = f 2 (ν) 15 (6 2 f (ν) + 6 f 2 (ν)). (4) In the no-velocity limit for GR1D, f (ν) = F r,(ν) /(E (ν) X). The free streaming and diffusion limits of the neutrino pressure tensor are P rr,(ν),thin = E (ν) X 2 and P ii,(ν),thick = g ii E (ν) /3, respectively. We set out to solve the system of equations via standard hyperbolic methods borrowed from conservative hydrodynamic schemes (Pons et al. ). Transport variables live at cell centers and we employ piece-wise linear reconstruction to cell interfaces with van Leer s limiter (van Leer 1977) and the HLLE approximate Riemann solver (Einfeldt 1988) for calculating the intercell fluxes. A complication arises when solving the neutrino moment equations in the high-opacity limit. In this case, the standard fluxes returned from the Riemann solver are dominated by a numerical diffusion term. We follow Audit et al. (2) and modify the fluxes to correct for this. Essentially, the modified fluxes return the diffusion-limit flux in the high opacity limit. The modified form of the neutrino energy density flux through the i + 1/2 interface is given by F i+1/2 r,(ν) = ã+ F i,r r,(ν) ã F i+1,l r,(ν) + ɛ (ν) ã + ã (E i+1,l (ν) E i,r (ν) ) ã + ã. (5) The corresponding modified interface flux for the neutrino flux evolution equation is, with P i+1/2 rr,(ν) = ɛ i+1/2 (ν) P rr,(ν) + (1 ɛ2 (ν))(p i+1,l (ν) + P i,r (ν))/2, (6) P i+1/2 rr,(ν) = ɛ (ν)(ã + P i,r rr,(ν) ã P i+1,l rr,(ν) ) + ã+ ã (F i+1,l (ν) F i,r (ν) ) ã + ã. (7) In these equations, ɛ (ν) controls the modification to the fluxes to account for the high opacity. Following Audit et al. (2), we take ( ) 1 ɛ (ν) = min 1,, (8) κ (ν) r where κ (ν) is the sum of the scattering and absorptive opacities. These opacities are strong functions of energy and are also species dependent. We note that when ɛ (ν) is 1, the intercell fluxes reduce to the standard HLLE approximation. The characteristic speeds needed for the HLLE scheme are calculated in the same spirit as the neutrino pressure tensor (Shibata et al. 11; Kuroda et al. 12), λ (ν) = 3p (ν) 1 2 λ (ν),thin + 3(1 p (ν)) λ (ν),thick, (9) 2 where in the zero velocity limit, λ (ν),thin = ±α/x and λ (ν),thick = ±α/( 3X). ã + and ã are the maximum and minimum values, respectively, of these characteristic speeds evaluated from both the right and left reconstructed variables. Finally, the source terms in Equations 1 and 2 are taken from Shibata et al. (11). In the zero velocity limit, S t = (η (ν) κ a,(ν) E (ν) )/α, (1) S r = (κ a,(ν) + κ s,(ν) )F r,(ν) /X 2, (11) where η (ν), κ a,(ν), and κ s,(ν) are the neutrino emissivity, neutrino absorption opacity, and the neutrino scattering opacity, respectively. We precompute the neutrino interaction terms for each neutrinos species (we treat, and ν x =

5 5 {ν µ, ν µ,ν τ, ν τ }) and neutrino energy group in dense tabular form as a function of density ρ, temperature T, and electron fraction Y e. We then use linear interpolation for efficient onthe-fly interpolation. We include all standard iso-energetic scattering processes, charged-current absorption and emission, and thermal pair-production processes (Burrows et al. 6; Bruenn 1985) in the calculation of the neutrino interaction terms. Since the neutrino matter interactions for heavy-lepton neutrinos and antineutrinos are slightly different, NuLib averages the two values of the emissivities and opacities. Our library of neutrino interaction routines, which we call NuLib, is open source and available as a GitHub repository at \protecthttp:// NuLib requires an EOS for the evaluation of the emissivities and opacities. Our treatment of thermal pair-processes in GR1D warrants some comments. Since we do not currently consider energy (or species) coupling for thermal emission processes such as electron positron annihilation to a neutrino antineutrino pair, we compute an emissivity based on the thermal content of the matter ignoring any final state neutrino blocking. To limit the neutrino energy density to the equilibrium value (where neutrino-antineutrino annihilation rates are in equilibrium with the thermal pair production rates), we use Kirchhoff s law to derive an effective absorption opacity for neutrino antineutrino annihilation from the thermal emissivity, κ eff,thermal a,(ν) = η thermal (ν) /B (ν), (12) where B (ν) = ce(ν) 3 /(2π hc)3 f eq (ν) is the thermal energy density of neutrinos with energy E (ν) and f eq (ν) = 1/(exp[(E (ν) µ)/t ] + 1) is the equilibrium neutrino distribution function with chemical potential µ. As we shall see, this method performs well at predicting the thermal neutrino flux of the heavy-lepton neutrinos during the preexplosion phase. In nugr1d, we first update the hydrodynamic variables to the n + 1-th timestep. We then compute the neutrino opacities and emissivities associated with the updated hydrodynamic variables. We update the radiation field operator-split. The flux term is solved explicitly, using the radiation moments of the n-th timestep. We calculate the neutrino matter interaction terms using the n + 1 radiation moments via a local implicit update. With the n + 1 radiation energy density source term, we then update the energy density and electron fraction of the matter. We use 24 energy groups, with lowest-energy group centers at.5 MeV and 1.5 MeV, and then spaced logarithmically up to MeV for, and ν x. We note that for the highest energy bins it occasionally occurs that the evolved neutrino flux vector exceeds the evolved neutrino energy density. This tends to occur in the most dynamic phases of our simulations and where the opacities vary significantly from one zone to the next. When this is the case we limit the neutrino flux to the neutrino energy density. We extract the radiation quantities in the coordinate frame at a radius of 5 km. 3. INITIAL MODELS AND EQUATIONS OF STATE We employ the most recent non-rotating solar-metallicity single-star model set from the stellar evolution code KEPLER (Woosley & Heger 7). This model set contains the presupernova configuration of 32 stars ranging in ZAMS mass from 12 M to 1 M. We denote individual models by sxxwh7, where XX corresponds to the integer ZAMS mass of the model, e.g., s12wh7 is the 12-M model of this model set. In O Connor & Ott (11), we investigated this and other model sets in the context of black hole formation. Under the assumption of a failed core-collapse supernova, we found a strong empirical relation between the properties of the presupernova structure and the evolution of the failing supernova, e.g., the time to black hole formation. This led to a clear prediction: If we observe black hole formation in a failed core-collapse supernova via neutrinos, the lifetime of the protoneutron star (and thus of the neutrino signal) relays direct information about the presupernova structure. However, such a prediction, (i) requires a failed supernova, which may not be the norm, and (ii) has a strong dependence on the nuclear equation of state. The empirical parameter introduced in O Connor & Ott (11) is the compactness of the progenitor, measured at the time of core bounce. It is an inverse measure of the radial extent of a given mass coordinate at the time of bounce, M/M ξ M =, (13) R(M bary = M)/1km t=tbounce where R(M bary = M) is the radial coordinate that encloses a baryonic mass of M at the time of core bounce. In O Connor & Ott (11), we chose M = 2.5M, since this is the relevant mass scale for black hole formation, i.e., a typical maximum baryonic mass at which a range of EOS can no longer support a neutron star against gravity. In this study, we primarily use ξ The motivation for this is that during the postbounce preexplosion phase, the relevant mass scale, especially for models with relatively small compactness, is much less than 2.5 M. In this study, we choose 1.75 M because this is close to the average baryonic mass inside the shock at 3 ms after bounce for all models: in the two extreme models that span the space in compactness parameter (model s12wh7, [ξ 1.75 =.24 and ξ 2.5 =.22], on the lower end; model s4wh7 [ξ 1.75 = 1.33 and ξ 2.5 =.59] on the upper end), the baryonic mass accreted through the shock at 25 ms after bounce is 1.45 M and 2.5 M, respectively. We further justify our motivation of using ξ 1.75 over ξ 2.5 in 5.1. In Fig. 1, we plot both ξ 1.75 and ξ 2.5 versus ZAMS mass for all 32 considered models. ξ 1.75 is provided in Table 1 for all models. For Fig. 1, one notes that while ξ 1.75 and ξ 2.5 differ quantitatively, there is no significant qualitative difference between them. The overall trends transcending individual models remain, including the two regions of high compactness near M and M. ξ 1.75 simply provides a more finegrained parameterization at the lower mass scale relevant in the first few hundred milliseconds after bounce. Note, however, that there are a few models that have similar ξ 2.5, but rather different density structure at small enclosed masses and radii and, hence, a different ξ Models s14wh7 and s16wh7 are examples. In this study we perform core collapse simulations with each progenitor and two EOS. We use the EOS of Lattimer & Swesty (1991) with a nuclear incompressibility of 2 MeV. The LS2 EOS is based on a compressible liquid-drop model of the nucleus. Of the publicly available nuclear EOS, the LS2 EOS best matches the constraints from nuclear theory and astrophysical observations (see Fig. 1 of Ott et al. 11 and Demorest et al. 1; Hebeler et al. 1; Steiner et al. 1; Özel et al. 1). We also employ the relativistic mean field EOS of Shen et al. (11) that is based on the

6 1 6 Ò Figure 1. Compactness parameters for the 32 considered presupernova models of Woosley & Heger (7) versus ZAMS mass as evaluated from collapse simulations with the LS2 EOS. We show both ξ 1.75 and ξ 2.5. The mapping between ZAMS mass and precollapse structure is highly nonmonotonic, making the former an ill-suited parameter for describing progenitor structure in core collapse simulations. TM1 parameter set. It is very different from the LS2 EOS. The maximum neutrino-less β-equilibrium cold neutron star gravitational masses are 2.4 M and 2.24 M for the LS2 and HShen EOS, respectively. The radius of a neutrino-less β-equilibrium cold neutron star with a gravitational mass of 1.4 M using the LS2 EOS is 12.7 km. For the HShen EOS, the corresponding radius is 14.6 km. For details on our particular implementation and the treatment of the low-density EOS, we refer the reader to O Connor & Ott (1, 11). The EOS tables, reader and interpolation routines are available from 4. COMPARISON OF NUGR1D TO BOLTZMANN TRANSPORT Since our implementation of neutrino transport is new and approximate, a comparison with published results of full Boltzmann neutrino transport is warranted. This will allow us to test the ability of our code to reproduce the neutrino luminosities and spectral properties in the preexplosion phase. We compare nugr1d with the results of Liebendörfer et al. (5), a comparison study between two Boltzmann neutrino transport codes 4. The two codes, Agile-BOLTZTRAN (Liebendörfer et al. 4), and VERTEX (Rampp & Janka 2), approach the neutrino transport problem in very different ways. Their results compare very well in the Newtonian limit, but show significant quantitative differences in the general relativistic case. Subsequent modifications to the approximate general relativistic potential used in VERTEX (Marek et al. 5) have since removed many of the quantitative differences between the codes. The general relativistic test case of Liebendörfer et al. (5) was the collapse and early postbounce evolution of a 15-M (at ZAMS) solarmetallicity progenitor of Woosley & Weaver (1995), referred to as model s15ww95 in the following. They employed the LS18 EOS (Lattimer & Swesty 1991) and a baseline set of neutrino-matter interactions, including coupling of energy groups via inelastic scattering processes (Bruenn 1985; 4 The numerical data from this study are available online at \unhbox\voidb@x\hbox{ X/6/2/84/fulltext/datafiles.tar.gz} L ν [1 51 erg s -1 ] <E 2 > 1/2 [MeV] ν x AGILE-BOLTZTRAN VERTEX nugr1d nugr1d* _ νe ν x _ Figure 2. Neutrino luminosities and root mean squared energies plotted as a function of postbounce time for the s15ww95 progenitor. These luminosities (top panels) and energies (bottom panels) correspond to the comparison study of Liebendörfer et al. (5). The left panels contain results for, the right panels show (thick lines) and ν x (thin lines) results. The inset plot in the upper left panel shows the luminosity around core bounce. Shown in solid black lines are luminosities and root mean squared energies obtained with nugr1d. The blue dashed lines and red dashed-dotted lines are the results from Liebendörfer et al. (5) using the VERTEX code (Rampp & Janka 2) and Agile-BOLTZTRAN code (Liebendörfer et al. 4), respectively. The thin dashed black lines (labeled as nugr1d*) are curves from a test simulation using profile data from the VERTEX simulation 5 ms before bounce as starting data. A detailed discussion of the differences is provided in the text. Liebendörfer et al. 5). We repeat their test here, using the same initial conditions and EOS, with our current approximations and compare the neutrino observables. We emphasize again that the current version of nugr1d lacks inelastic neutrino electron scattering and velocity dependent transport terms. Both are included in the simulations of Liebendörfer et al. (5). Our transport scheme evolves only the zeroth and first moment of the neutrino distribution function, using an analytic closure to truncate the series of moment equations, whereas Liebendörfer et al. (5) solve the full Boltzmann equation for neutrino transport. In Fig. 2, we show the luminosities (top panels) and root mean squared energies (bottom panels) of three neutrino species: (left panels), and and ν x (right panels). Both the luminosity and root mean squared energies are defined in Liebendörfer et al. (5), Section 4. The black solid lines are the results obtained with nugr1d, the red dashed-dotted lines are the predictions of Agile-BOLTZTRAN, and the blue dashed lines are the VERTEX results. Overall, the agreement is good, however there are are several systematic differences: (i) The magnitudes of the and luminosities in the early postbounce phase predicted by nugr1d agree well with the Agile-BOLTZTRAN results but they are systematically lower than the VERTEX results. This discrepancy, which also exists between VERTEX and the Agile-BOLTZTRAN, has been further investigated in Marek et al. (5) and has since been resolved. The updated VERTEX code employs an improved general relativistic potential and gives comparable amplitudes to Agile-BOLTZTRAN, and hence nugr1d. (ii) The time when the silicon oxygen interface (located at

7 7 a baryonic mass coordinate of 1.43 M in model s15ww95) accretes through the shock, which is marked by a sharp drop in the and luminosities, is earlier (at 14ms) in our simulations than in the simulations of Liebendörfer et al. (5) ( 18ms in the VERTEX simulations 5 ). We have carried out a number of tests to try to understand this difference. We have varied the zero point of the internal energy, which affects the relativistic enthalpy entering the momentum and energy equations and alters the collapse time. We have attempted different mappings of the presupernova stellar structure to our Eulerian grid, we have tested variations in precollapse electron capture by parameterizing Y e as a function of density in the collapse phase (Liebendörfer 5), and we have replaced the low density compositions with a pure silicon gas (which replaces the NSE equivalent of mainly iron and therefore better represents the low density matter). None of these tests led to a change of the postbounce time to silicon oxygen interface accretion by more than 1 ms. Without currently having the modeling technology to test it, we suspect that the apparent difference may be due to the only other obvious difference between nugr1d and VERTEX: our lack of detailed neutrino physics during the collapse phase. Two facts lead us to this conclusion. The collapse time discrepancy between the VERTEX (t collapse 177 ms) and Agile-BOLTZTRAN (t collapse 172 ms) and nugr1d (t collapse 224 ms) can be explained by the lack of inelastic scattering. Liebendörfer (11) gives a t collapse 213 ms in Agile-BOLTZTRAN when neutrino-electron inelastic scattering is neglected. This collapse time difference, 4 ms, is the difference in the silicon-oxygen interface accretion times. Also, when we map in the VERTEX profiles from Liebendörfer et al. (5) at 5 ms before bounce to nugr1d and continue the evolution we reproduce the postbounce time that the silicon-oxygen interface reaches the shock. We show the result of this simulation with a thin dashed curve, marked as nugr1d*, in Fig. 2. It is worth noting that there may be additional differences due to the simplistic treatment of the EOS at low densities. Below a density of g cm 3, VERTEX replaces the nuclear statistical equilibrium (NSE) EOS with an EOS that specifically depends on the composition of the matter. Agile-BOLTZTRAN assumes all matter below this density is silicon. Both have some treatment of nuclear burning. In GR1D, as discussed in O Connor & Ott (1), we assume NSE compositions from the nuclear EOS. At densities below the validity regime of the nuclear EOS, we take the compositions at the lowest density point from the nuclear EOS and use the Timmes EOS (Timmes & Arnett 1999). For reference, the initial density of the silicon oxygen interface is g cm 3, where the range represents the extent in density space. (iii) The and root mean squared energies, predicted by nugr1d agree very well with the Boltzmann transport results during the postbounce phase. The difference seen in the ν x root mean squared energy is similar to that observed by Thompson (2) and Lentz et al. (12a) when investigating the effects of inelastic neutrino electron scattering. In the postbounce evolution, this interaction is expected to predom- 5 Such a sharp drop is not seen in the Agile-BOLTZTRAN results. Liebendörfer et al. (5) attribute the lack of a sharp drop in the Agile-BOLTZTRAN results to the use of an adaptive grid, which introduces artificial diffusion and smears out sharp density features. Nevertheless, the slow decline of the and luminosities begins around the same time as in the VERTEX simulations. inately affect the ν x neutrino. We currently ignore this process in nugr1d and note that the ν x luminosity predicted by nugr1d still agrees well with the full Boltzmann results. (iv) Another difference between the evolution in nugr1d and the full Boltzmann transport results arises in the collapse phase. The lack of velocity terms and inelastic e scattering significantly effects the composition of the inner core. In simulations with inelastic e scattering, neutrinos from electron capture on free protons down-scatter off of electrons to lower energies. Since the optical depth is lower, these neutrinos can then escape, deleptonizing the core. In our simulations, these high-energy neutrinos cannot downscatter and therefore cannot escape. Deleptonization is suppressed until later phases, when central density and temperature are higher. The lack of velocity-dependent terms delays full trapping by neutrino advection that would normally begin to occur at ρ g cm 3 until nuclear densities, allowing for further deleptonization. At bounce the central value of Y e are.22 compared to.29 in VERTEX and Agile-BOLTZTRAN. The root mean squared energies predicted by nugr1d are higher during the prebounce phase, because the neutrinos do not experience the down-scattering via inelastic neutrino electron scattering. Overall, we find that differences in the inner core structure and composition at bounce do not strongly present themselves in the neutrino signal after the collapse phase. Therefore, for this study, we find the current version of nugr1d to be acceptable, since our primary focus is the neutrino signal of the preexplosion accretion phase. We do note, however, that the lack of energy-coupling terms in our transport can cause qualitative differences near black hole formation. When energycoupling terms, such as gravitational redshift, are included, then the and luminosities drop off at times very close to black hole formation, as seen in Fischer et al. (9). This effect can be captured with GR1D s leakage scheme in which it is trivial to include redshift terms (O Connor & Ott 1). Capturing redshift in an energy-dependent transport scheme requires energy-group coupling. We have also compared our M1 scheme to the results of Fischer et al. (9) for the 4 M model from Woosley & Weaver (1995) using the LS18 EOS. In this model a black hole forms within 5 ms of bounce. We find differences in the and luminosities of 1 % in the last 5 ms, but good agreement in the early postbounce phase. 5. RESULTS 5.1. Trends in the Neutrino Observables We perform core collapse and early postbounce evolutions of all 32 models introduced in 3 using both the LS2 and the HShen EOS. In Fig. 3 we present the three neutrino luminosities and average energies for each model and EOS as a function of postbounce time. We do not expect a clear trend in the neutrino observables with ZAMS mass. However, we do expect trends based on the presupernova structure of the star, which is well encapsulated by the compactness parameter introduced in 3. In the top set of panels we show simulations run using the LS2 EOS. In the bottom panels, simulations performed with the HShen EOS are shown. To highlight that there is indeed a trend with presupernova structure, we colorcode individual models according to their compactness parameter. The mapping between line color and ξ 1.75 is provided

8 8 Table 1 Key Neutrino Quantities Model ξ 1.75 E νe νe 4ms /E4ms /Eνx 4ms Nms ibd LS2/HShen N4ms ibd LS2/HShen [B] [1 3 ] [1 3 ] s / / / / 1.78 s / / / / 2.7 s / / / / 2.49 s / / / / 2.59 s / / / / 1.68 s / / / / 1.78 s / / / / 2.92 s / / / / 2.18 s / 22.7 / / / 2.91 s / / / / 1.65 s / / / / 3. s / / / / 4.67 s / / / / 4.24 s / / / / 3.28 s / / / / 2.33 s / / / / 2.42 s / / / / 2.62 s / / / / 2.17 s /.3 / / / 2.58 s / 19.9 / / / 2.4 s / / / / 2.75 s / / / / 3.4 s / 28.5 / / / 3.79 s / / / / 5.75 s / / / / 5.44 s / / / / 2.45 s / / / / 2. s / / / / 1.95 s / / / / 2.46 s / 17.8 / / / 2.22 s / / / / 3.7 s / / / / 2.7 Note. For each model in the Woosley & Heger (7) model set we show ξ 1.75, the cumulative emitted neutrino energy in, and a single ν x at 4 ms after bounce. The numbers correspond to the models run with the LS2 EOS. We also present, for each model, the estimated number of IBD interactions in a Super-Kamiokande-like detector at and 4 ms after bounce for a supernova at a fiducial galactic distance of 1 kpc for both EOS. on the right. To more directly highlight the EOS dependence, we include the luminosity and average energies of two models run with the LS2 EOS in the HShen EOS panels with thick dashed lines. These models, s12wh7 and s4wh7, have the lowest and highest compactness parameter in our model set, respectively. We find that there is little variation in the peak luminosity of the neutronization burst signal. For all 32 models simulated using the LS2 (HShen) EOS, the peak amplitude varies by less than 3% (5%) from the average. This reflects the universal nature of the collapse of the inner core (Liebendörfer et al. 2). After the neutronization burst, the postbounce luminosities of all species increase systematically with increasing compactness parameter. Models with higher ξ 1.75 have higher temperatures throughout the protoneutron star (O Connor & Ott 11). This increases the diffusive neutrino luminosity and is best seen in the ν x luminosities. The postbounce accretion rate also increases with the compactness parameter. Higher accretion rates, and the deeper gravitational potential due to the higher protoneutron star mass, increase the accretion luminosity, which is most directly reflected in the and signals. After roughly 1 ms, the average energy of the emitted neutrinos also shows an increasing trend with the compactness parameter. The matter temperature at the neutrinosphere is higher in models with larger compactness, therefore a higher average neutrino energy is observed at infinity. The neutrino luminosities and average energies from simulations using the HShen EOS are systematically lower than the luminosities and average energies from simulations of the same model run with the LS2 EOS. This is clearly seen in the bottom set of panels in Fig. 3: models s12wh7-ls2 and s4wh7-ls2 have luminosities and average energies that are comparable to or larger than in the corresponding HShen models. For a fixed accretion rate (or fixed progenitor model), the location of the neutrinosphere of each species influences the emitted luminosities and spectra. In models evolved with the stiff HShen EOS, the neutrinospheres are located systematically at larger radii and lower matter temperatures than in models run with the softer LS2 EOS. For example, in the s12wh7 simulations, the Rosseland-mean neutrinospheres at ms after bounce have radii and temperatures of 35.3 km and 4.86 MeV; and 39.5 km and 4.46 MeV for the LS2 and the HShen EOS, respectively. The larger neutrinosphere radii are responsible for the lower accretion luminosity since the latter is set essentially by the product of the mass accretion rate and the gravitational potential at the protoneutron star surface (Liebendörfer et al. 2). The latter is located at larger radii in simulations using the HShen EOS. The differences in the neutrinosphere radii and temperatures between the LS2 and HShen EOS also give an explanation for the systematically lower average neutrino energies seen in the HShen simulations. Matter at larger radii has been compressed less and therefore is cooler. This leads to average neutrino energies that can be up to 5 MeV lower for the HShen EOS than for the LS2 EOS for the same progenitor model (see Fig. 3). The difference in the neutrino luminosities and average energies between the two EOS is largest for models with ξ , in which the high accretion rates lead to the accumulation of 2 M of material inside the shock within 3 ms of bounce. In the case of the LS2 EOS, this leads to very high temperatures throughout the protoneutron star as it becomes more and more compact and closer to gravitational collapse to a black hole. In our simulations, the most compact model s4wh7 (ξ 1.75 = 1.33, ξ 2.5 =.59) forms a black hole 53 ms after bounce. The slightly less compact model s45wh7 (ξ 1.75 = 1.3, ξ 2.5 =.55) forms a black hole 563 ms after bounce. The high temperatures present in the LS2 simulations at these times will not be obtained until postbounce times 1s in models using the HShen EOS 6. Most neutrino detectors are most sensitive to the electron antineutrino luminosity through the dominant IBD interaction, + p n + e +. In the left panel of Fig. 4, we consider the cumulative emitted energy for each model using the LS2 EOS. We color code the models based on their compactness parameter and include two reference models that use the HShen EOS, model s12wh7 and model s4wh7. The graphs shown in this panel are the integral of the graphs shown in the top center panel of Fig. 3. It is obvious that the cumulative amount of energy emitted during the preexplosion phase strongly correlates with the compactness of the progenitor model. For example, the amount of emitted energy 6 While we do not follow these models to black hole formation in our current study, in O Connor & Ott (11) we found that the black hole formation times of the s4wh7 and s45wh7 models are 1.3 s and 1.4 s, respectively, when using the HShen EOS.